1. Facts of the Case
A woman (referred to as the intending mother) entered into a surrogacy agreement under the supervision of a registered medical facility. A surrogate mother carried the pregnancy and delivered a healthy child. After the birth, the intending mother applied to her employer for maternity benefits, including paid leave and other entitlements under applicable Indian laws.
The employer denied the claim, arguing that she had not undergone the physical process of childbirth, and thus, was not eligible for maternity benefits meant for biological mothers. The intending mother challenged the denial, citing emotional, legal, and caregiving roles she assumed post-birth.
2. Issues in the Case [Questions]
- Is an intending mother eligible for maternity benefits under Indian law if the child is born through surrogacy?
- Does the definition of “maternity” under Indian statutes include emotional and caregiving roles post-birth?
- What do current Indian laws and judicial precedents say about parental rights in surrogacy cases?
- Can denial of such benefits be considered discrimination against women opting for alternate means of motherhood?
3. Legal Principles and Provisions
This case touches upon various provisions in Indian law concerning surrogacy, maternity benefits, and the rights of women and children:
A. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
- Section 2(zd): Defines intending couple as those who commission a surrogacy procedure.
- Section 8: Once a child is born through surrogacy, the intending couple are treated as the legal parents.
- Thus, the intending mother assumes full legal and parental responsibility, including emotional and caregiving roles.
B. Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017
- Section 5(4): Provides 12 weeks of maternity leave to commissioning (intending) mothers from the date the child is handed over to them.
- The amendment was introduced precisely to recognize non-biological modes of motherhood, such as surrogacy and adoption.
- This legal entitlement is irrespective of whether the mother physically gave birth.
C. Constitution of India – Article 14 & 15
- Guarantees equality before law and prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
- Denying maternity benefits to a commissioning mother would amount to indirect discrimination.
D. Judicial Precedent:
- In Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port Trust (2019), the Madras High Court upheld that denial of maternity leave to a woman who became a mother through surrogacy was arbitrary and against the spirit of the Maternity Benefit Act.
- The court ruled that the act of nurturing a child, even if not through natural birth, deserves legal protection and support.
4. Possible Judgement
Considering the law and precedents:
The intending mother is legally entitled to claim maternity benefits under Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017. Her role in parenting begins from the moment the child is entrusted to her, which involves substantial physical, emotional, and psychological demands, deserving of statutory protection and leave benefits.
Additionally, denying her such entitlements would violate Article 14 of the Constitution by treating her unequally from biological mothers.
Judgement Outcome (Likely):
- The employer is directed to grant 12 weeks of maternity leave and associated benefits.
- The organization may be advised to revise HR policies in line with the 2017 Amendment and recognize surrogacy-based maternity rights.
Mnemonic to Remember – “SIMC Law”
Use “SIMC Law” to recall the applicable framework:
- S – Surrogacy Act, 2021 (legal parenthood to intending mother)
- I – Intending Parent defined under Section 2(zd)
- M – Maternity Benefit Act, 2017 (Section 5(4)) – 12 weeks for commissioning mother
- C – Constitutional Rights – Article 14 & 15 (equality & no discrimination)
- Law – Legal parent = Legal rights including maternity benefits
